Found another Catholic article, by Michael Novak, which more or less confirms my suspicions that believers know there is something odd about their faith. When they realize that, however, they have to keep on believing it no matter what, and come up with increasingly odd explanations so that every wayward fact can be accounted for by their fantasy.
Check out the article here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0260.htm
Some highlights I find telling: "No one can see God, even if they try." , "Do not ask to see Jesus, or to feel Him. That is for children. Love him in the dark. Love for the invisible divine, not for the warm and comforting human consolation. Love for the sake of love, not in order to feel loved in return."
They admit they cannot see or feel their god. They admit that they worship something invisible which doesn't respond to them. And yet they persist. They make one fatal admittance after another:
"For those who love God, that way is excruciating. They would like to feel close to God, but they find -- nothing!", "One must follow Him without any human prop whatever, even warm and comfortable inner feelings."
They know they have no proof, no evidence whatsoever for their god. But they continue to believe. It baffles me, in a way. This author claims you should follow his god without any human props, not even inner feelings. But he must be getting something. Even if the actual hunt for God doesn't give him good feelings, perhaps the thought that he is virtuous by searching so hard does give him good feelings. He might feel that he is keeping faithful to God, and this might give him warm inner feelings, a sense of accomplishment.
The article continues: "That is to say, our senses cannot touch God. Neither sight nor sound, scent nor taste, nor touch, either. Our imagination cannot encompass Him, nor even bring Him into focus. How can we count on our memory? Our minds can form no adequate conception of Him; anything the mind imagines is easily ridiculed. The God who made us and out of His infinite love redeemed us and called us to His bosom is divine, not human. As such, He cannot be found using human perceptual equipment."
This brings up a number of questions. If human perceptual equipment is unable to detect God, how can we know anything about him? the human is all we have. And if we can form no adequate conception of God, then all our talk, through all ages, has been our own invention.
The article has more, though. It goes on to a discussion of the famed St. John of The Cross, author of the book The Dark Night of The Soul, which deals with the issues of God's lack of response and whatnot. We come to this passage:
"Beginners who are prone to "spiritual gluttony" are, in fact, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination. Such persons expend all their effort in seeking spiritual pleasure and consolation; they never tire therefore, of reading books; and they begin, now one meditation, now an other, in their pursuit of this pleasure which they desire to experience in the things of God. But God, very justly, wisely, and lovingly, denies it to them, for otherwise this spiritual gluttony and inordinate appetite would breed innumerable evils. It is, therefore, very fitting that they should enter into the dark night, whereof we shall speak, that they may be purged from this childishness. "
Notice how this conflicts sharply with Jesus' claim that unless his disciples became like little children, they wouldn't get to heaven. (matthew 18:3) Though the letters of St. Paul conflict with the gospels, such as one instance where St. Paul speaks of putting away childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).
So which is it, really? Is Jesus right, and we need to be like children, or are St. Paul and John of The Cross right, in that we need to put away childish things? You'd think Jesus would get primacy, but in this case scripture battles scripture without any consideration of whose advice is more legitimate.
One more quote that I find revealing:
"Darkness is not a sign of unbelief, or even of doubt, but a sign of the true relation between the Creator and the creature. God is not on our frequency, and when we get beyond our usual range, which in prayer we must, we reach only darkness."
The number of admissions in this article is staggering. But the truly audacious thing is that Novak tries to turn this darkness on it's head, and make it something good, virtuous, and make it seem like further confirmation of God. This is why believers are pretty much insane. They realize there is no evidence for their faith, none at all, and they keep making excuses to believe.
One last quote:
"I hypothesize that unbelievers, especially those who have never known religion in their personal lives, or who have had bad experiences with it, experience a revulsion against reasoned knowledge of God, and even more so against a Jewish and/or Christian faith. Indeed, they find it harder to imagine themselves as believers than believers to imagine themselves as unbelievers. Am I wrong? "
I don't experience revulsion against "reasoned knowledge of God" because such knowledge doesn't exist. I have searched for it for a while now, and I have yet to find a reasonable excuse for God or any of the other gods. That said, it is easy to imagine myself as a believer. I have been a believer, fervently so, a number of times in my life. I know the feeling, we'll say. I've been on both sides, and I much prefer secular humanism to any of the current religions. As for God, if (S)He/ It exists, and he cares enough about me to want to decide the fate of my soul, He should be able to speak to me directly. I find every human discussion on His attributes more inventive than true. All religion, I think, is human invention. We make our gods, when we make them, in our own image. If there is a "True God" I'm going to wait until said True God stands up and announces its existence and wishes. Until then...
If you want to read more of the article, go see for yourself.